Laborers Union Local 79 – Management Memohttps://www.managementmemo.com
Management's Inside Guide to Labor Management Relations LawMon, 19 Jun 2017 19:57:23 +0000en-US
hourly
1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.3.3&lxb_maple_bar_source=lxb_maple_bar_sourceNLRB Holds Supervisor’s Text Messages to Employee Were Unlawful Interrogations –Rejects Employer’s Argument for “Safe Harbor”https://www.managementmemo.com/2017/06/19/nlrb-holds-supervisors-text-messages-to-employee-were-unlawful-interrogations-rejects-employers-argument-for-safe-harbor/
https://www.managementmemo.com/2017/06/19/nlrb-holds-supervisors-text-messages-to-employee-were-unlawful-interrogations-rejects-employers-argument-for-safe-harbor/#respondMon, 19 Jun 2017 12:04:35 +0000http://www.managementmemo.com/?p=1923Continue Reading…]]>On June 7, 2017, in RHCG Safety Corp. and Construction & General Building Laborers, Local 79, LIUNA, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) rejected an employer’s contention that “a text message cannot be found to constitute an unlawful interrogation” and found that a coercive text message, just like a coercive face-to-face meeting or a coercive phone call, could serve as evidence that the employer had unlawfully threatened or interrogated employees concerning their union support or activity in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”), and thus could support a finding that the employer committed an unfair labor practice (“ULP”). The Board noted that the employer had offered “no reason why the Board should provide a safe harbor for coercive employer messages via text messages.”

The Act’s Protection of Employee Activity

The Act provides all employees with the right to engage or refrain from engaging in protected, concerted activity, that is activity concerning their terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to the right to join and be represented by unions and to engage in collective bargaining with their employers. It is well established that these rights, which are provided for in Section 7 of the Act, protect and apply to employees in both unionized and non-union settings. The Act prohibits both employers and unions from engaging in conduct that interferes with employees in their exercise of their Section 7 rights. Under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, it is an ULP for an employer or its agents to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. For example, it is unlawful for an employer to interrogate an employee about his or her support for a union or that of other employees. It is a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act for an employer to terminate, discipline or otherwise take action against an employee because of his or her exercise of Section 7 rights.

The case in question arose in the context of a union organizing campaign by Laborers Union Local 79 among employees of RHCG Safety Corp. (also known as Redhook Construction Group). The union had petitioned the NLRB for a representation election, in which employees were to vote on whether they wanted Local 79 to become their bargaining representative. During the campaign, an employee texted his supervisor, to inquire about returning to work after an approved leave of absence. The supervisor replied by text, “U working for Redhook or u working in the union?” According to the unanimous Board decision, in which Chairman Miscimarra joined with Members Pearce and McFerran, an employee would understand the supervisor’s message to strongly suggest that working for Redhook was incompatible with supporting or working in the union. The Board therefore agreed with the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who had conducted the ULP hearing, that the text message constituted an unlawful interrogation and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

In its exceptions to the ALJ’s decision Redhook argued to the Board that a text message could not constitute an unlawful interrogation, but according to the Board’s decision, Redhook failed to offer any reason to support its position that a text message could not support a finding of an unlawful interrogation. The Board rejected Redhook’s contention, finding “an unlawful interrogation need not be face-to-face.” The Board also rejected the argument that the text message at issue was inadmissible at the ULP hearing because the screenshot of the text offered by Counsel for the General Counsel did not include the entire communication between the employee and his supervisor. The Board reasoned that the Federal Rules of Evidence permit introduction of only a part of a writing, and there was nothing in the record to suggest the text message at issue was incomplete or that the “missing” text messages could have negated the coercive nature of the “are-you-for-the union” inquiry.

What Should Employers Do Now?

The Board’s decision highlights the need for employers to carefully consider how to communicate with employees in the ordinary course of business and during an organizing campaign. Given the issues workplace texting presents for employers, it is advisable for employers to review their communication policies to make clear what methods of communication are allowed in the workplace. Employers should also review their record retention policies to make sure that all permissible mediums of communication are covered by the policy. Texting is a casual form of communication. To the extent employers permit text messaging among employees, it may also be necessary for employers to remind employees that text messages are workplace conversations, and the dos and don’ts applicable to face-to-face meetings and telephone calls apply equally to text messages. Employers should also pay even greater attention to all forms of communications, both formal and informal, and by the company as well as by supervisors and managers whose actions and statements can be attributed to the employer, in the presence of organizing or other union activity.